Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Few Thoughts on Science
So the big march “in support of Science!” happened. I skipped it, since it was an obvious and transparent attempt to appropriate “science” for the political left. The whole self-regarding spectacle stank of red herring. The red herring being, of course, that conservatives are a bunch of snake-handling backwoodsmen who hate science. Or something. I have it on first-hand authority that there were many placards along the lines of “Evolution doesn’t care if you believe.” Very true. But it didn’t occur to the placard-carriers that if evolution doesn’t care, then carrying the placard is rather pointless. Unless you are a professional working biologist, loudly proclaiming your belief in evolution is useful for precisely one thing: social status positioning.
I am a big fan of basic science, including science that promises little in the way of practical returns. For example, on a strictly ROI basis, our considerable spending on research in cosmology and astrophysics has been a terrible investment. On this basis there is no way to justify something like the Hubble Space Telescope. Yes, it has increased our knowledge of the universe on the macro scale. But it is difficult to justify this cost as an investment – basically it’s consumption. The same is true of the manned space program. It cost a huge amount of money, and, despite all the promises of great new zero-g drugs and so forth, it has been basically a luxury bauble that we as a nation purchased to adorn ourselves, not an investment in an economic sense. (You could call it the Hubble Bauble.) In fact, the manned space program is much worse from an investment standpoint than the Hubble, because it hasn’t even gotten us very far in terms of basic science, let alone paid for itself economically.
Nevertheless, I am personally not against us as a nation purchasing some of these baubles, including basic research whose practical returns are highly speculative. First of all, in the immortal words of Emil Faber, Knowledge is Good. But more to the point, I would justify it as a matter of national branding: I want the US to be a leader in prestige areas of science such as high-energy physics and so forth. And because much of this science is so expensive, there is a strong argument that it cannot be funded by private foundation money alone. However, we need to be careful even here, because public funding always crowds out private funding, so claims that if the government doesn’t do it then no one else will, should be taken with a very large lump of salt.
On the question of taxpayer funding of things like renewable energy projects and so on, I am much more skeptical. I think it requires technical expertise in R&D that I do not possess to answer this question with confidence, but I see this area as one where there is a huge potential for private economic gain, especially if we are to take all the dire global warmist predictions seriously. I understand that nuclear fusion reactors are a promising technology. That’s great – this would solve a lot of problems. Possibly this kind of thing requires public spending, I don’t know. But why should taxpayers help private energy companies develop better solar panels or batteries? The energy companies, as we are constantly reminded, have very deep pockets. Let them fund their own research, especially since the upside is theirs alone. Alternatively, why can’t they just go to the private capital markets like everyone else to finance their R&D? If they can’t raise private capital, maybe they don’t deserve to get it. It seems to me that handing out public cash in this area is just asking for massive corruption and cronyism.
But isn’t it true that government spending brought us such scientific breakthroughs as nuclear energy, not to mention Velcro? No question, there are always economically and otherwise valuable spillovers from large government science and technology projects. Historically, probably the most important driver of technological innovation has been war and weapons development, (of which the US civilian manned space program was an appendage). Defense spending has produced many valuable technological spin-offs and byproducts: advanced metallurgy, synthetics, nuclear energy, laminar flow airfoils, computers, electronic miniaturization, jet propulsion, communication satellites, Jeeps, etc. I suppose you could even add the Internet and the Nobel Prize. Some of these would have been developed eventually by the private market doing its thing, but the need for better weapons definitely accelerated technological progress. So the fact that Trump proposes to shift over a chunk of the budget from outfits like NIH over to the Defense Department may turn out to be a wash from the standpoint of marketable technology.
However, nobody ever justifies defense spending on the grounds that it’s an economically rational way to do positive internal rate of return investment. Defense is overhead; marketable technology is an unintended byproduct. Even a huge success like the Concorde was deeply in the red at the end of its life. Government knows how to build military hardware; it has no idea how to do private equity investments.
Along these lines, when I first graduated from college I worked for a company that, among other things, looked for promising “defense conversion” projects in the ruins of the former Soviet defense industry. The Russians pitched all kinds of crazy schemes, like converting extremely toxic liquid missile fuel into fertilizer and building public buses and metro trains out of titanium. I’m sure those buses would have been strong and lightweight and the fertilizer would have done whatever fertilizer does. But it’s one hell of an expensive way to make buses and fertilizer.
As far as the People’s Climate March next weekend, I’m skipping that one too. It’s an obvious smokescreen ginned up to distract us from the real threat: the imminent reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field. When the Earth’s magnetic polarity flips, Priuses will explode, souffles will collapse, hairdryers will suck instead of blow, yin will be yang, and chickens will lay soft-boiled eggs. Hardest hit will be women, whales, woodland creatures and other disadvantaged groups. Why is the UN suppressing this information? Because they know that if the truth were exposed, it would make the global warming hysteria look like the monthly meeting of the East Moline Union of Narcoleptic Philatelists.
And so I ask: What is Science doing about anthropogenic magnetic weakening?
Published in Science & Technology
Watch: Bill Nye blows gasket when a real scientist schools him on facts about “climate-change”
Beautifully put. A red herring: That’s exactly what it is.
Perhaps there’s also some straw-manning going on. And, where sincere, missing the point.
It’s not like Leftists can only commit one informal fallacy per day.
Good heavens, Augie, most of them can’t get through a paragraph without at least two. And the strawmen deployed have to be counted by the phalanx.
This is science in the age of -ismism. There are scientists and then there are science-ists (devotees of science-ism). Sadly there seem to be more and more of the latter than the former.
Great article. It’s difficult to invest well, it’s even more difficult to spend well, but harder still to give money away. It always opens up avenues and incentives for corruption and capture and with time and mission creep programs always end up corrupt and captured. We have to work very hard to keep it simple and transparent, and periodically kill the programs and start over. The global warming industry is a case in point but so was NASA.
Excellent.
New placard: Evolution doesn’t care if you carry a placard.
Greens make the same argument about renewables that you did: they “…want the U.S. to be a leader in prestige areas of science.” This is a tricky line of reasoning that can readily be co-opted by anyone.
There are privately-funded companies working on magnetic confinement fusion. One I happen to be familiar with is Tri Alpha Energy. There are others.
Working in Federally funded science as I do I have come to the conclusion that a large fraction of Federally funded research and development is a technical training program to fund young people in the advanced skills necessary keep innovation going.
Oh, dear. I hadn’t heard about that, but it’s a real thing. It’s a “March for climate, jobs, and justice.” They say, “WE RESIST. WE BUILD. WE RISE.”
Oh, dear, dear dear.
Another one out of the park. Good to see you back, Ob.
I am in awe.
Speaking of Bill Nye the Science Guy, here’s a clip from his new show.
And remember, this is a SCIENCE show.
Allegedly.
(Warning: Totally NSFW. Which should not be the case with actual science, should it?)
(I provide the following merely as a public service and an object for discussion.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wllc5gSc-N8
Oh, yeah – science deniers. That refers to the lefties who spread unfounded and unscientific fears about vaccines, genetically modified foods, fracking, DDT (60 million or more dead from malaria thanks to that one), 32 oz. sodas, e-cigarettes, ozone depletion (remember that one?), and global cooling? Right?
If that clip above from Bill Nye’s show is what is being called “science” these days, I’ll gladly deny it.
Given that we are getting ~20% of the US electrical power from nuclear reactors that were designed in the late 50’s and early 60’s, which were slated for a 30 year life, and have been extended by almost twice that, is nothing less than astonishing. These were Gen I designs and much has been learned on how to make them idiot proof to the overhyped disaster scenarios. Current designs could be brought on line if it were not for the overzealous anti civilization chorus.
The reason one cannot get investment is the phalanx of NIMBY and abusive/arbitrary regulatory road blocks by the ignorant lot (and the lawyers that enable them) who profess that they care about the planet. Nuclear power has a utility rate 95% from the day they turn the switch on. That is power all day and all night, a constant non polluting source that is very amenable to planned down time to reload the core every five years. If it were not for a really shortsighted executive order from our only nuclear engineering president (Carter, for fear of the waste being accessible to terrorists) we could be reprocess these rods, because after five year 95% of the energy in those rods is unused, but it could be recycled bring them back up to 100% and thus greatly diminishing the waste.
Instead we let the stuff hang around the power plants while we P&M over opening Yuca mountain. Instead of one really secure place, we have the potential of theft at every nuclear power plant site.
Seriously, if the French can have a grid based on 85% nuclear power, perform reprocessing for most of the non US nuclear plants around the world, and sell their excess electrical power to the Germans, (who’s lower castes are starting to really regret to their total green movement) and the fact that Putin has them by the short hairs every winter if they get a really cold snap, well what is our excuse?
It is past time for us to bring on the most current designs in nuclear power and not be cursing the darkness. Solar and wind power are never going to come close, it’s basic physics.
@GDLIII,
But Chernobyl! Three Mile Island! Fukoshima!
You like? I’ve been growing that one in the basement lab for some time.
Not all nuclear power is alike,
a) Chernobyl was essentially a bomb manufacturing source, with a removable lid to the containment vessel (you know for ease of removal duh!),
b) give me the name of one individual who died from 3 Mile Island from that barely measurable gas burp (and did I not say we have learn a heck of lot since the 60’s), and
c) the names of those who died, outside of the four (six?) who volunteered for finishing the reactor turn off at Fukushima, after not one, but two faults that exceeded the design specs by orders of magnitude. First the earth quake, then the tsunami.
I stack those numbers against every coal miner’s death from cave in’s, industrial accidents, or Black lungs in a heart beat.
Perhaps we should all go back to burning dung to cook our foods and heat our hovels.
P.S. I know you were being facetious ?
Having worked for both civil corporations and military contractors, I found that private companies were much more receptive to innovation than government funded research and development. Developing a new military idea usually resulted in the “not invented here syndrome,” by either the contracting agency (Army, Navy, etc.) and especially within the military company itself. The company (wrongly) concludes that its present higher cost / lower performance products have a better return on investment.
As an innovator, I’ve found that patents and other significant progress occurs while being immersed in the problem to be solved. Sometimes it is too late in the development cycle to be implemented, but the innovation process can be learned. Federal funded research shouldn’t be a “finishing” school to increase knowledge and gain some practical experience. I think a highly motivated individual in a good private company can accomplish much more innovation without government funding.
I’d say that it can also matter if you’re involved — or interested in — primary science education, but I’d agree that’s often mere signaling.
On a whim, I did the following Google search: “punctuated equilibrium magnetic polarity of the earth”. There are some interesting results. Turns out there is a significant scientific literature out there regarding the relationship between evolution and reversals of the Earth polarity.
Strongly seconded. If you want to make a case for this — and I absolutely agree that one can — then we should just be honest about it. That people refuse to do so speaks badly about them.
Exactly.
Moreover, I’d say that you can tell a bit about a country by what it does with its excess explosives. The Taliban attached to Buddhist statues to destroy them; we attache ours to robotic probes and to explore the universe. It’s says something good about our civilization.
Tangentially, anonymous had some interesting speculation on the effects of radioactive decay on evolutionary history.
http://ricochet.com/archives/saturday-night-science-potassium-40-and-the-evolution-of-complex-life/
Exactly. It’s these same people who heap scorn on anyone who questions evolution. They inhabit an irony-free zone. I hear it’s very expensive to live there.
But–if I may just–add a personal note–(gulp!) –I felt so-bad- when I saw all those caring people rallying to “defend” Science!! Selfish, insular, me–I didn’t even realize she was under attack! I never spared a thought for how much she and her devotees must be suffering. So c-c-c-old! “The oceans are rising and so are we!” Who could hear that cri de coeur with a dry eye? ( I mean ,even before we’re up to our eyeballs in salt water?) O I have ta’en too little care of this! Fair Science, smile on my humble berth!
When testifying before a Senate committee to secure funding for Fermilab (not to be confused with Fourmilab), Robert Wilson made no effort to misrepresent his case. Quite the opposite. I think he acquitted himself well, don’t you?
I have some thoughts on science, too. Or, at least scientists. Any scientist worth his salt should be appalled by the politicization of science that has occurred with the AGW hysteria. “Scientific consensus.”* Bah!
The people attending these rallies can hardly be called “truth-seekers” when their primary objective is to silence anyone who disagrees with their conclusions (and sometimes their “evidence” because they’ve so thoroughly corrupted it — see Michael Mann/hockey stick).
Michael Crichton wrote and spoke eloquently on the hazards of government funding and politicized science. His solution was to fund opposing views — it’d probably produce better results and still save money — definitely would provide a better ROI.
*BTW, I recently read somewhere that the touted 97% of scientists was found in a study of the abstracts of hundreds of scientific papers. Something like 36% of the papers seemed to agree that “climate change” is happening, is human-caused, and will be devastating to the environment (the three necessary components of AGW
hysteriatheory). The other papers indicated either skepticism (small percentage) or withheld an opinion.Conclusion? 97% of 36% of scientists who already agree with AGW theory agree with AGW theory. In scientific terms, we’d say, “duh.”
These people are so dishonest.
That was awesome.
Bumper sticker of the 80s: More people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy’s car than have died from commercial nuclear power in the US. Still true today.
Moving on, In the clip provided by Columbo in comment # 1 above Mr Nye talks about ‘deniers’ cherry picking data. Funny he should say that as it’s those believers. living off the taxpayer, who used cherry-picked data to create their flawed models for the purpose of scaring the public into spending even more money. Consensus science, another tool used by them to force their beliefs upon us. If they had their way we could find ourselves back in the mid 17th c. facing heresy trials as Galileo did for writing about heliocentrism. (He was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment and lived the rest of his life under house arrest.)
And oh how I hate that label, ‘deniers’ !!
I would like to deny em alright. Any of these bozos who promote this false energy canon should be “denied” access to the grid and let them figure it out up close and personally.